Given controversies about this earlier this year, I assumed candidates and campaigns would know better than to use troops, in uniform, as props in political TV ads. I assumed wrong.
The Army is reviewing the appearance of a soldier in uniform in a political television ad by Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine.
The soldier wears Army fatigues with “Larkin” on the name tag and stands silently for about two seconds in front of an American flag with what appears to be his wife and two young daughters.
“He fought for increased benefits for military families,” the ad’s announcer says of DeWine as the family is shown.
Unlike still photos of soldiers in combat earlier in the ad, this soldier appears to have been filmed specifically for the ad.
As Greg Sargent, who broke this story yesterday, noted, “all military personnel…are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events.” As a result, a military spokesman said the matter had been referred to the Army Public Affairs “for review and possible comment/action.”
Had the DeWine campaign simply used an actor for the ad, this wouldn’t be a problem, but no such luck. A campaign spokesperson told the AP “Larkin” is a real soldier, not an actor.
Two important things to keep in mind here: one, the recent history that DeWine ignored; and two, if anyone’s going to be punished for this, it’s the serviceman, not DeWine.
DeWine’s campaign may have forgotten, but back in March, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) caused some trouble by using troops, in uniform, as props at a campaign event. It also became a problem for the White House, when the president delivered a series of political speeches on military bases, leading to concerns among active-duty troops about whether they were being dragged into a partisan fight.
The attacks against critics at military settings may have put troops in the awkward position of undermining their own regulations. A Department of Defense directive doesn’t allow service members in uniform to attend “partisan political events.”
Questions have been raised about the military’s attendance at events where Bush says something like “they spoke the truth then, they’re speaking politics now.” Several members of the military told FOX News that Bush is inviting the troops to take sides in a partisan debate in his speeches.
“This is a very bad sign,” said retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who led Central Command in the early 1990s and is an administration critic. “This is the sort of thing that you find in other countries where the military and political, certain political parties are aligned.” […]
“Where you have our uniformed members being put in a position where it looks like they’re rooting for one side or another is very disconcerting,” said Greg Noone, a former Navy lawyer.
I’d say Mike DeWine putting a uniformed soldier in his campaign ad certainly gives the appearance that the serviceman is rooting for one side.
Also, it’s worth noting that there’s a disconcerting pattern emerging about Republican candidates asking supporters to take all the risk with none of the gain, while the campaigns stand to get all of the gain without any of the risk.
It’s just like the GOP campaigns asking churches to put their tax-exempt status on the line by helping promote and support Republican candidates. If there’s a problem, it’s the churches that are left holding the bag when the IRS comes for a visit. Similarly, if serviceman “Larkin” shouldn’t have appeared in DeWine’s ad, and the Pentagon decides to issue some kind of punishment, it’s not DeWine who’ll suffer; it’s the soldier.
In other words, as far the GOP is concerned, partisan political gain comes first, legal and moral consequences for their “allies” comes second. Classy.
